Re: Ecologic Limitations

[hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

Dear John Williams,

I, too, am familiar with the limitations of epidemiologic designs (they can suggest, not prove).



To focus my response, please answer this:

Do you believe that the headline "Radon causes lung cancer", stated in CA -A Journal for Clinicians, is justified? Samet wrote that, although Field

writes me that such an inference would require reproducible double blind experiments.



To say, "Yes" because probably true of  miners receiving 10 to 100 x the dose  in homes, is like scaring people with "Vit D causes liver damage" (to

stop its addition to milk), or "Iodine is poison!" (to stop iodized salt correction of goiter). I prescribe poison 10 x a day. Most medicines will

kill you with from 10 to 100 x the prescribed dose. Dose is everything. Let's find the right dose for ionizing radiation in homes. Benefit seems

present to 6pCi/l radon.



Ionizing radiation may be an essential (and neglected) trace energy.

There is more evidence for the harm of deficiency than harm from overdose.



Best Wishes for the new year,

Howard Long



John Williams wrote:



>

>  From: Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>

>

> The primary factor in a 'case-control' study is knowing the dose to

> the

> individual. Radon case-control studies do NOT know the dose to the

> individual.

>

> Jim,

>

> PLEASE take the time to learn the limitations of the various

> epidemiologic designs.  I know of no credible, published

> epidemiologist that seriously considers Cohen's finding plausible.

> For example, Jay Lubin pointed out that "There is still substantial

> confusion in the radiation effects community about the inherent

> limitations of ecologic analysis. As a result, inordinate attention

> has been given to the discrepant results of Cohen, in which a

> negative estimate is observed for the regression of county mortality

> rates for lung cancer on estimated county radon levels. Since adverse

> effects for radon at low exposures are supported by analysis of miner

> data (all data and data restricted only to low cumulative exposures),

> a meta-analysis of indoor radon studies, and molecular and cellular

> studies, and since ecologic regressions are burdened by severe

> limitations, the negative results from Cohen's analysis are most

> likely due to bias and should be rejected."

>

> Apparently, the confusion still exists.

>

> Sent by Law  Mail

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/